GCC: Flying first class on a single domestic round trip can contribute more greenhouse gas emissions than a year of driv

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

GRA

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 19, 2011
Messages
14,018
Location
East side of San Francisco Bay
Flying first class on a single domestic round trip can contribute more greenhouse gas emissions than a year of driving
https://www.greencarcongress.com/2019/07/20190701-sivak.html

Greenhouse gas emissions were examined for 17 nonstop flights with round-trip distances ranging from 131 miles to 19,040 miles. Among these flights were the three most frequently flown routes in the United Sates (New York to Los Angeles, Los Angeles to San Francisco, and Chicago to New York); the shortest flight that is code shared with a major U.S. airline (San Francisco to Santa Rosa); the longest flight within the continental United States (Seattle to Miami); and the longest flight in the world (New York to Singapore).

Average greenhouse gas emissions (carbon dioxide equivalent) per passenger from flying were obtained from an online emissions calculator at myclimate (a nonprofit spin-off from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology). The myclimate estimates include not only the direct emissions from the combustion of jet fuel, but also the indirect emissions, such as those from refining and transport of the fuel, by adding 16% of the direct emissions. Furthermore, myclimate accounts for other warming effects of aircraft emissions (through changes in the ozone layer, initiation of contrails, formation of cirrus clouds, etc.) by adding an amount that corresponds to the direct portion of emissions. (A documentation for the myclimate calculator includes other aspects of the method used.)

The present calculations of the emissions per distance used the shortest flight distances as listed at Web|Flyer. The results for flying economy class are shown in the table below. The entries in the table are in decreasing order of distance flown. . . .

Carbon dioxide equivalent emissions per passenger for a round trip flying economy class range from 390 pounds for the shortest examined flight to 13,892 pounds for the longest flight.

Emissions per passenger mile flying economy class follow a U-shaped function. The minimum among the 17 flights examined—0.65 pounds per passenger mile—is for a flight with a one-way distance of 2,720 miles, which turns out to be the longest nonstop flight within the continental United States. (This is consistent with an estimate from the Worldwatch Institute that the most fuel-efficient distance is around 2,670 miles.)

As the flight distance decreases from 2,720 miles one way, emissions per passenger mile increase. For the shortest flight examined (66 miles one way), emissions increase 4.6 times to 2.98 pounds per passenger mile.

Analogously, as the flight distance increases from 2,720 miles one way, so do emissions, but much more gradually. For the longest flight in the world (9,520 miles one way), the emissions per passenger mile are 0.73 pounds (12% greater than for the flight with the minimum emissions). . . .

The above data are for flying economy class. Because flying first class increases the amount of space per passenger, emissions increase substantially for first-class flying. (Also, first-class passengers tend to carry more luggage, and the first-class seats are substantially heavier than the economy-class seats.) For the examined 17 flights, myclimate estimates that first-class emissions increase about 3 times for all flights that are 1,940 miles or longer one way, and about 2.5 times for all flights shorter than 1,940 miles.

How do greenhouse gas emissions from flying compare with emissions from driving? It turns out that, in the United States, the occupants of light-duty vehicles (cars, SUVs, pickups, and vans) annually contribute, on average, 7,958 pounds of carbon dioxide equivalent. . . .

This calculation used the 2017 values for the direct emissions of all greenhouse gases from the combustion of fuel by all light-duty vehicles (2,421 billion pounds of carbon dioxide equivalent), the number of persons with a driver’s license (225,346,257), and the average number of occupants in light-duty vehicles (1.674). Furthermore, indirect emissions, such as those from refining and transport of the fuel, were included by adding 24% of the direct emissions.

The average annual carbon dioxide equivalent emissions per occupant of a light-duty vehicle (7,958 pounds) are about the same as the emissions per passenger from a round trip from San Diego to Frankfurt flying economy class (7,938 pounds), or from a round trip from Atlanta to Los Angeles flying first class (2,646 pounds times 3 equals 7,938 pounds). . . .
Includes the table referenced above, much more. Not news to anyone who's read "Sustainable Energy - Without the Hot Air" (free online at https://www.withouthotair.com/ See Chapter 5 and Technical Chapter C). I last flew in 2001, for this and other reasons (none of which were related to 9/11), and only plan to do so for bucket list items or emergencies unless I can do so using 100% sustainable jet fuel.

It's also why I support high-speed electrified or H2/FCEV rail for inter-regional trips up to about 400 miles, even if we royally screwed that up here in California. The NE corridor is the obvious place where HSR makes the most economic sense in the U.S., but there are some other corridors with enough traffic to justify building it.
 
The plane doesn't know whether you're sitting in First-class or Economy. I'm not inclined to discover the rest of their logic.
 
The plane uses X gallons of fuel for the trip. X can be divided between relatively few 1st class passengers or many more passengers in economy. At the extreme, you have a private jet. Surely the impact from flying a plane with one passenger is higher than a fully loaded plane, at least on a per-passenger basis.
 
Flying isn't an egregious carbon emissions sin based on passenger miles per gallon, it's horrific because the distances traveled are so much greater than just about anyone would tolerate via other means of (surface) transportation.
A friend of mine travels to Europe and back 15+ times per year. He said it's ok though, he pays extra for offsets. Apparently the effects of extracting and burning ancient hydrocarbons on the climate can be negated by giving someone some money.
 
LTLFTcomposite said:
Flying isn't an egregious carbon emissions sin based on passenger miles per gallon, it's horrific because the distances traveled are so much greater than just about anyone would tolerate via other means of (surface) transportation.
A friend of mine travels to Europe and back 15+ times per year. He said it's ok though, he pays extra for offsets. Apparently the effects of extracting and burning ancient hydrocarbons on the climate can be negated by giving someone some money.

If they take that money and install solar panels that prevent a coal fired power plant from burning an equivalent amount of hydrocarbons, yes, it can.

If they just scam you and pocket the money, no it can't.
 
But can what they collect for the offset actually buy enough solar production to displace the massive carbon emissions from the jet travel? I'd like to see the math on that.

Looks like the power companies are switching to renewable-gas turbine hybrid plants anyway just on economics. Didn't we hear a while back that transportation has surpassed electricity generation in carbon emissions?

I'd bet on the pocket-lining outcome, certainly skimming a large percentage. Never one to believe in indulgences anyway.
 
LTLFTcomposite said:
But can what they collect for the offset actually buy enough solar production to displace the massive carbon emissions from the jet travel? I'd like to see the math on that.

Looks like the power companies are switching to renewable-gas turbine hybrid plants anyway just on economics. Didn't we hear a while back that transportation has surpassed electricity generation in carbon emissions?

I'd bet on the pocket-lining outcome, certainly skimming a large percentage. Never one to believe in indulgences anyway.

That's why you need good auditing and oversight. Not clear that it's present here, but I do believe that properly taxing carbon emissions and using the revenue to subsidize carbon reduction is the best way to minimize the impact of climate change quickly.

Granted, power companies are switching to lower carbon emissions fuels, but the question is "over what timeframe?" If you want to accelerate the switch (and we do), you have to subsidize it.

A quick google search shows that NY to London is 1301 pounds of CO2.
https://travelnav.com/emissions-from-london-united-kingdom-to-new-york-ny

Utility solar is $40-$46/MWh
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2019/06/04/climate-change-coal-now-more-expensive-than-wind-solar-energy/1277637001/

Coal produces ~2000 pounds of CO2 per MWh (2lbs per kWh).
https://carbonpositivelife.com/co2-per-kwh-of-electricity/

The round trip is 2602 pounds of CO2, or 1.3 MWh equivalent of solar production ($52).

That's a dramatic overestimate of what a CO2 offset would cost. Why? Because it assumes the electricity from coal is free (hint: it's not). For an offset, all you really need is to pay someone to switch from coal to solar. Because coal and the maintenance of the coal power plant costs money, you'll actually have to pay them less than the full cost to switch to solar.

In short: It wouldn't cost THAT much money to actually make significant improvements. We've ignored the problem for so long that there are tons of areas where we can optimize CO2 production. If a significant tax was levied on carbon production, you'd see the global economy switch quite quickly.
 
Seems like what's really called for is converting the power generation AND foregoing the air travel.

With 4k TV there's no need to vacation in Paris, just show me a nice documentary and I can see what it's like same as being there. I don't have to worry about lost luggage and exchange rates.
 
LTLFTcomposite said:
Seems like what's really called for is converting the power generation AND foregoing the air travel.

With 4k TV there's no need to vacation in Paris, just show me a nice documentary and I can see what it's like same as being there. I don't have to worry about lost luggage and exchange rates.

Or sail both ways, for people who've got the time:
Greta Thunberg is sailing back across the Atlantic. Here's what she accomplished while in the US
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...rg-sails-back-europe-la-vagabonde/4178195002/


Of course, that's a very limited population compared to those who can spare a week or so.
 
As mentioned, the bad emissions per passenger per miles flown, flying is better than driving. And first class vs. economy is silly. It comes down to "per passenger". An all business class aircraft (like some that exist on the LHR to JFK and JFK to LAX routes) takes that into consideration based on the limited passengers it can take.

This now 7yr+ old article states:
According to recently published figures from the FAA, in 2012 the energy intensity gap was 3,193 BTU/passenger mile for driving, compared to 2,654 BTU/passenger mile for flying. Energy intensity for airplanes is “now significantly lower than automobiles.”

In the 7 years since it hasn't gone down linearly because most of the easier aircraft gains have been got. But the NEO aircraft and the MAXs (whoops...) do help. As do the GPS based navigation routes versus ground-radar based routes being experimented with, etc.

Sometimes you just got to fly. Other times, it just makes more sense to fly or is more comfortable/easy to do so. One week this year I did 30k miles circumnavigating the globe in 8 locations. 7 days, 8 areas, 30k miles. Can't do that by boat or car.

Looks like this year so far I've gone about 300k miles on one airline and its partners and 100k miles on another. So a relatively average year for me.
 
Mr. 2k1toaster is hardly alone in racking up those sorts of huge air miles per year. Presumably at that point you don't have an EV for environmental concerns.

Honestly I don't know why Greenpeace isn't picketing at the airports.
 
2k1Toaster said:
And first class vs. economy is silly. It comes down to "per passenger".
Not really. I would say that it comes down to modeling the CO2 emissions of the flight as a fixed overhead plus a function of payload mass. [Heavier flights use more fuel.] Your mass-based contribution is independent of what class you are flying in.

But the fixed overhead should be divided according to space taken up on the plane. E.g. if a plane could be configured as 200 economy seats, but is instead configured as 20 first class and 160 economy seats, then each economy seat gets 1/200 of the overhead, and each first class seat gets 1/100 of the overhead, or twice as much.

As I reckon the payload of an airplane is well under half of its takeoff weight, I expect the overhead contribution to be bigger than the payload mass contribution.

Cheers, Wayne
 
Great explanation Wayne. I have to think the reason airlines charge so much more for business class and 1st class seats than economy is more about the flight costs (much of which is fuel) rather than the extra 2 glasses of wine you get or the nice silverware.
 
2k1Toaster said:
As mentioned, the bad emissions per passenger per miles flown, flying is better than driving.

Depends. It's better than driving solo in a conventional ICE, but 2 per car is about the same and any occupancy above that the car comes out ahead. H/PH/B/FC - EVs would all reduce the a/c's advantage, and then there's how the electricity is made, and yada yada.


2k1Toaster said:
And first class vs. economy is silly. It comes down to "per passenger". An all business class aircraft (like some that exist on the LHR to JFK and JFK to LAX routes) takes that into consideration based on the limited passengers it can take.

Which is the point being made - first class pax take up more space per pax, thus the a/c can hold fewer people and the energy cost per pax goes up (although it drops some due to the lower weight of pax and fuel AOTBE). Same goes for business class to a lesser extent. [Edit] Oops, I see Mr. Whitney beat me to it, and did a better job of clearly explaining it than I did.

See the comparison chart here for general numbers comparing different modes of travel: https://www.withouthotair.com/c20/page_128.shtml
 
goldbrick said:
The plane uses X gallons of fuel for the trip. X can be divided between relatively few 1st class passengers or many more passengers in economy. At the extreme, you have a private jet. Surely the impact from flying a plane with one passenger is higher than a fully loaded plane, at least on a per-passenger basis.

And just as surely, the plane is going to take off whether I'm in economy or first-class.
 
Back
Top